Evidence of meeting #57 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was employee.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Don Bell
I call this meeting to order.
First of all, we'll start with a motion from Mr. Julian on amendment NDP-11. I then have a suggestion on a manner that we can take as an option.
(On clause 12)
Mr. Julian.
3:35 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
According to the agenda handed out, we were starting elsewhere, and I set myself up for that.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Don Bell
Do all the members have this sheet? It's what we'll be talking about in a second. It's a proposal to group some motions, if there's a willingness to do so.
Would you care to move it?
3:35 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Yes, I move it.
Essentially, this is an issue that was brought up and raised earlier. The exemptions that are provided for under that section are not provided to “a holder of a Canadian aviation document or an operator of aircraft”. It's to separate the issues around non-punitive actions that deal with employees, which we all agree with, and the issue of whether or not to give a “get out of jail free” card to the holder of the document or the operator of the aircraft.
We're making a distinction here. Through this amendment we would essentially be defining a “person” as an individual, not as a holder of an aviation document or an aircraft operator.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Don Bell
Okay. Thank you.
As you can see in this proposal here, if the committee wishes, we're proposing to group amendments. We could open the discussion to cover amendments BQ-17, BQ-18, BQ-21, BQ-22, and NDP-12 because they overlap to some degree. Do you wish to deal with them individually?
If the motion for amendment NDP-11 is passed, it may well be that BQ-17 and BQ-21, which delete parts of this amendment, 5.395 and 5.397, would then leave only 5.396 affected by your motion, Mr. Julian.
3:35 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I would suggest that the discussion would be on amendment NDP-11, which essentially deals with flight data analysis agreements.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
After our discussions last time and indeed the suggestions to exclude some of the different organizations from the self-reporting mechanism, could the department actually confirm what exactly Mr. Julian is trying to do with this amendment? Does the department think this would be a useful exercise to take it out and to not have it function in the way the others do?
3:35 p.m.
Franz Reinhardt Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
Yes, amendment NDP-11 deals with the universal voluntary non-punitive reporting program. It has nothing to do with flight data analysis.
This is a program where anybody can report voluntarily. I believe Mr. Julian's motion is that they would like to remove that right for operators and document holders. But if you remove document holders, you would prevent any pilot from reporting individually because a pilot is a document holder. Aircraft maintenance, engineers, and mechanics are document holders as well. You cannot do this.
The point was to have as much information as possible. There are already criteria to prevent abuse by big companies or certificate holders. They cannot report in cases of criminal activity, in cases of intentional things, in the case of not being qualified to do something, and in the case of accident-related safety issues. Those criteria are quite strong, and they cannot be used in such circumstances.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
3:35 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Chair, Mr. Reinhardt is right. The heading of the section is the voluntary reporting section. I think it is fair to say, however, that we have to ensure there is a distinction made between employees and the holders of Canadian aviation documents and aircraft operators. There is no doubt in my mind that a distinction has to be made. That's why, for the voluntary reporting sections, we're proposing this amendment.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Mr. Chair, I have a question.
Mr. Julian has used the term “get out of jail free card”. I appreciate what he's trying to achieve; it's always the spin you put on something. It's just that he's completely wrong. This is not about getting out of jail free.
I want to ask our officers here to comment on whether there's anything preventing the authorities from pressing criminal charges. Is there anything that would prevent a member of the public or an organization of the public from commencing an action for negligence in the civil courts? Is there anything preventing an employee from going outside of the voluntary reporting process and going to the press by way of whistle-blowing or going to Transport Canada to say that the company is doing something wrong and it's a serious problem?
Is there anything that prevents them from doing that?
3:35 p.m.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
Indeed, Mr. Fast, nothing prevents authorities from taking action based on information they have obtained outside of the system. Nothing prevents a private party from taking up a lawsuit. Nothing prevents any action being done against those individuals or those companies if it's done outside the voluntary, non-punitive reporting.
